First of all: HUGE kudos to the AP for bringing more transparency to the entirely-too-sketchy poll-voting process.

(It almost makes up for the AP's hypocrisy in huffily withdrawing from the BCS under the rhetoric of "not wanting to make news," while still arrogantly bestowing, on its own, one of two recognized national titles in college football. But that's not making news or anything.)

But second: It offers a glimpse into the individual ballots that was previously very difficult (you had to look up each voter on their own and hope they published their ballot, which some did and some didn't).

What were some of the more surprising examples of the perception of homerism or scratch-your-head judgment? (I don't mean to pick on these specific individuals; these were the ones that just hit me most viscerally.)

(There were a surprising number of voters who had Michigan at No. 2, including Kirk Herbstreit, who votes under the auspices of WBNS-AM in Columbus. And then there was guys like Joseph Duarte of the Houston Chronicle, who had Texas No. 6, ahead of Michigan at No. 7. Hell, even the voter from Austin, Kirk Bohls, had Texas at No. 8 and was another voter with Michigan at No. 2. I'm not saying it's THAT wrong -- although it IS wrong -- but just noticeably different from the No. 6 aggregate ranking...and perhaps even inflating the No. 6 up a slot or two?)

Scott Wolf (LA Daily News), who also had West Virginia No. 1, but had hometown USC No. 6. (WVA can NOT claim West Coast Bias against them.)

Doug Lesmerises (Cleveland Plain Dealer), who I actually think was a classmate of mine at Northwestern, whose ballot I simply think most closely matches mine.

Here's my problem: Reporters and columnists are entitled to their opinion, but if they are going to insist on flashing regional bias, I think fans should insist that these folks not be given the responsibility – the privilege, actually – of having such sway over a process that is more a national trust of fandom than personal fiefdom of a couple dozen newspaper reporters.

I didn't spend nearly the time on this that I wanted to, and I'm sorry I'm only finding this now – on a Friday afternoon. Maybe next week I can dig into it more (and earlier in the week). Someone with a gift for Excel could really do some damage on the analysis.

Here's your follow-up task: Check out the various ballots using this link and, via the Comments section on this post, add any more examples of questionable bias (or just sloppy or "YOU'RE-an-expert?!" judgment you might see. The AP might have started this to add in a little more accountability; it's on fans to take it to the next step.

43 comments:

The link you sent us to, takes me to a blue map, then upon clicking on a state, shows the papers in that state that are members of the AP. What gives? Relink if you get a chance please, I'd be interested to see who voted for whom, thanks!

Dan, you want to not grant votes to newspapers in cities where the team is top 25?

So, if you're in New Brunswick, NJ, voting....and Rutgers is on the cusp of being top 25, do you have to wait for all the other votes to come in, to see if Rutgers is NOT top 25, and then you get to have your vote count for the week?

(And then, you have to make sure your vote doesn't push Rutgers INTO the top 25, thus negating your own vote, which then re-substantiates it, which then....)

I understand the idea of getting the homerism out. How about taking an "average" vote.....This way, the voters in Columbus don't vote for Ohio St.....but Ohio St. isn't counted as a ZERO on their ballot, you simply divide by a fewer number of ballots for them.

All you'd have to do is make a point of indicating that you think they're top 25 and just not counting them. Especially if you're the Rutgers guy voting, and you think they're legitimately #26. Then they get no points but your ballot counts in the denominator, versus having them #25, where your ballot doesn't count, omitted by this anti-homerism rule.

So all this transparency is going to accomplish exactly what I thought... Nothing. The writers will still vote the way they feel, even if there is rampant homerism. The whole poll is for the compilation of varying opinions, not for conformity.

That idea to eliminate hometown voters is probably half-baked. Maybe throw out the highest and lowest? I don't know the solution, because I can't begrudge the hometown Rutgers writer like I begrudge the hometown writer of a bigger powerhouse.

You on fire today bra. But he got a point. He got a point. We maize and blue brothers from another motha don't like to see such feeble teams sit on top of us in the rankings when they almost got beat last weekend. We don't beat, Dan. We MASSACRE teams. Big difference. And this should in itself escalate our strenghts. We don't know how to win. This ain't 1997 where we beat teams narrowly. This is the real deal. We bring it every Saturday. A massacre

How does this make sense? Ray Ratto of the San Francisco Chronicle rank Va. Tech at 10 and Ga. Tech at 24 after the Yellow Jackets beat them by 11 in Blacksburg? Did he just sleep through last weekend? Unbelievable.

I don't know why Michigan is getting bad mouthed. If they started the season #1 and Ohio St started outside the top 10 would there be any problems with OSU being #2? I have no problems with Michigan being ahead of Auburn, USC, or West Virginia... they've been 1 of the most impressive and complete teams in the country so far. If there were no preseason rankings they would be getting the respect they deserve n the polls.

I can see Michigan in the number two spot for the same reasons as nep1293.

manninghamheisman - Don't you read the Wall Street Journal? Michigan clearly does not have the top NFL players...Not that one article is going to decide a debate like this, but they do offer up a nice mathematical formula:

As much as I don't really care about the rankings right now, I don't see why it is 'ludicrous' to have Michigan at #2. No more ludicrous than a team like West Virginia, with a JV schedule, ranked ahead of them. How have the teams ahead of Michigan looked more impressive? OSU is the only team with a more impressive victory this year, winning at Texas. Michigan not only won at Notre Dame but absolutely destroyed them. I can see why people would rank them at #2.

You know I wish the gators got to play in such a conference like the big ten. Sure OSU and UM are perrenial top 25 teams but really who else is there. it has been mostly downhill for PSU since they joined and most of the other teams are average at best. Cmon the top four scoring defenses are in the sec and we have to play them in the span of one month. Id love to see michigan or OSU get pummeled week in and week out. I really hope that it is a big ten team and the gators playing for the national title because I want to see what you guys have to say when you only manage about 200 yrds and 6 points. I figure there are at least five teams in the SEC who could beat OSU or UM regularly. Sure I am a homer but we all are on some level but at least im not so blatant as to think Leak will even compete for the Heisman.

Oh yeah and Dan or any fellow gator are at the game tomorrow look for the drunk guy with the orange and blue mohawk at the salty dog after the game. First rounds on me.

If you look at the game by game resumes of the 5 teams fighting for #2 right now, Michigan has had the best season thus far. They've played the toughest schedule and they've had a 3 score lead halfway through the 4th quarter in every game. They haven't even broken a sweat yet. The Wolverines 4 TD victory on the road in South Bend is easily the best performance of any of the other teams.

Auburn? Nice 4 point win at home against LSU. Also a nice nailbiter over a bad South Carolina team that came down to the final seconds.

I'll wait a few more weeks before making any definite decisions, but right now Michigan has had the best resume with USC and Auburn just slightly behind in the race for #2 behind Ohio State.

As for whoever mentioned the Vandy game not being impressive, you obviously didn't watch. Vanderbilt only ran 11 plays past the 50 yard line the entire game. The next 2 weeks they proceeded to take Arkansas and Alabama to the wire.

Why all the love for WVU being ranked so high. Sure they have looked impressive but look at who they have played.-Marshall (1-4 with a win over a 1-AA team)-Eastern Washington (1-AA team with a 1-4 record)-Maryland (3-1 with no win greater than 14 points againest a 1-AA, Mid Tenn State, and FL Atlantic)-ECU (1-3 beating only Memphis)Not exactly a difficult lineup of teams and today they get a 1-4 Miss State team. They play in the weakest BCS conference and their out of conference schedule is a total joke. Other than Louisville and a suprising Rutgers none of their oppenents are in the top 25. If three of the big conference teams finish unbeaten and WVU is one I do not see how they could claim to be in the top two. Finishing with a perfect record in the Big 10, SEC, or Pac 10 would be far more impressive then their undefeated season.

First of all, I might be 'with' Manningham and Manningham (are you actually the same illiterate guy logging in with two different names to make it seem like somebody agrees with you?), but I'm not with them.

Despite that, I'm still not gonna sit down and take Dan's abuse (and I think it's really Dan this time, but, quite frankly, I'm surprised.

Is Michigan's schedule really all that lousy? Florida has to play 3 or more top ten teams! Oh, but... one of them is Auburn. Why was Auburn a Top Ten team? They started up there, and the inertia was enough to plant them there solidly, through (warning: foreshadowing) struggles against not-so-great teams.

Oh, and... one of them is LSU. Why was LSU a Top Ten team? They had a loss! But, they started up there, and then they lost to Auburn. Now, Auburn was a Top 2 team, because they beat a Top 5 team, LSU. (Pardon me if my logic gets a little fuzzy here - fuzzy logic is exactly what I'm trying to demonstrate) You can't drop LSU very far - they lost to a #2 team! Oh, you say LSU has lost 2 now - one close game to a team that we were expecting to be really good, and one blowout to a Florida team that actually seems to be pretty good? Hrm.

Ah, yes, and Georgia. Top Ten Team Georgia. Gave the mighty Colorado Buffs all they could handle (in the last 50 seconds of the game). But hey - they were in the Top ~10 preseason, and they didn't lose (until this weekend when they bent over and took it hardcore in the second half vs. Tennessee).

Aside from playing each other really tough, have either Auburn or LSU showed anything this year, aside from those little numbers next to their team names? What about Georgia? Have they looked good in any game, for any length of time?

I'm not saying this makes Florida's schedule shitty, and I'm not saying that they shouldn't be rewarded if they make it out of the SEC undefeated. UF should absolutely be NC-game-bound if they don't lose this season. The only reason that anybody pretends last week's Top 5 belonged there, and the only reason anybody gets away with claiming the SEC schedule is so much tougher than the Big Ten schedule, is the preseason rankings and the intertia of the polls. Dan, I was sure you had this figured out by now.

And now, the idea of Michigan at #2 being ludicrous:Why in the blue fuck would you say that? Who has shown more on the field, during the season (a criterion DS loves in theory)?OSU? Sure. They were better last year (if that matters this season), and they're still good (haven't had any trouble dispatching various opponents, including some tough ones).Auburn? Heh.USC? This one bugs me. A team has been good for a few years, but loses tons and tons of talent. Everybody still pretends they're just as good, or almost as good. Nobody can disprove this, unless they pay attention when USC has a tough time with teams from Washington two weeks in a row, even in a home game. No. USC has no business in the Top 3.WVa? How did we decide this? I mean, what in hell has us convinced that this team is so great? They really haven't played a team yet. When they lose to Lville, it will become clear to everyone else as it is to me, this team doesn't belong in the Top 8.UF? Maybe. I mean, why not? They haven't lost, they beat some tough teams, including Tennessee on the road. I mean, they squeaked by, but not on a fluke or any bad calls. Real team winning real games. But then, why are they better than Blue? Haven't beaten OSU. Just beat an LSU team which might just have been overrated a little. Beat 'em pretty good, but not in a way that totally overshadows UM's win over a slightly overrated ND.

Poll inertia is the enemy of any thinking CFB fan (who doesn't cheer for overrated teams that actually suck). And yet, you've turned it into a huge glass ceiling for UM.

I wouldn't care enough to have written all this, but your STFU attitude grates on me, for whatever reason.

And jen from ohio - 'You guys are playing better than anticipated'?? Gee, thanks, coach. Thanks for demonstrating how ridiculous this preseason-poll-mindset is. Anticipation shouldn't have anything to do with rankings. This is the embodiment of the inertia we rail against.

And, regarding fixing the polls - excuse me, repairing - Any idea that involves letting everybody vote, but not letting them vote for their local team doesn't make sense, and sure doesn't work.

What about alums? Everybody did undergrad somewhere, and most of them are stuck on their alma mater. Being in Detroit doesn't mean you root for UM or MSU.

More important, really, is the fact that inflating one team isn't the only heinous choice a poll participant can make. If I had a ballot, I could vote OSU #12 if I felt like it. I wouldn't do it, because they're the #1 team until proven otherwise (maybe 2 or 3, given strong cases, but I don't think they've shown any weakness, which should be required for dropping in the polls). Even if I had Michigan at #6 like a good little AP writer, I could drop the whole Top 5 behind them, which has about the same effect as just putting them at #1.

And what is a writer supposed to do if they just can't vote for their team? Just leave an empty spot? What does that accomplish?

If there were anything to be done (and there clearly isn't), there would have to be a review board. Give each ballot to a room full of people who know and care about CFB. If the first couple guys who see a ballot think it looks clean, accept it. If the first couple think it's fishy, the whole board takes a closer look. Writers have a chance to defend their choices; if their case is as lousy as I expect most would be, there's an escalating penalty scale. Votes discounted, expulsion from poll eligibility, a weekend with Joe Buck, what have you.

Yeah, I know this doesn't make enough sense either, but polls are subjective, so the correction mechanism has to be subjective too.

Also - I don't see why Auburn at #7 was so crazy last week, either. As I said in my post above - Auburn hadn't proved anything. In fact, that Detroit News writer is a hero for dropping Auburn like they deserved after backing into a win with a failed drive at the end of a game.

I think the reason the SEC lost all those games is because after losing out on winning the sec championship there is typically a letdown. However it is a very good point about us not having a winning record those bowl games however the gators did win last yr against iowa in the outback bowl. I think the last few seasons the SEC has had an upswing in the quality of both the play and the talent.

Hi, i was looking over your blog and didn'tquite find what I was looking for. I'm looking fordifferent ways to earn money... I did find this though... a place where you can make some nice extra cash secret shopping. I made over $900 last month having fun!make extra money

Connect With Me

Quickish

About This Blog

DanShanoff.com is a sports-blog spin-off of my long-time ESPN.com column, "The Daily Quickie." Anchored by an early-morning post of must-know topics, the blog is updated frequently throughout the day with new posts and user comments.